Del Mar vs Pagcor (Digest)

DEL MAR vs PAGCOR Raoul Del Mar vs Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, et. Al. G.R. No. 138298 June 19, 2001 FACTS Raoul del Mar ISSUE PAGCOR filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to reverse the decision of the court which enjoined (cease and desist order; prohibit) PAGCOR from managing, maintaining and operating jai-alai games and from enforcing the agreement entered into by them for that purpose. Whether or not PAGCOR has a franchise to operate jai-alai. HELD The SC denied the motions for reconsideration due to lack of required number of votes because only 7 justices voted to grant the motions. Opinions of Justices: PUNO Justice Puno denied the motion for reconsideration of PAGCOR. PD 1869 is an express amendment of PDs 1067-A, 1067-B, 1067-C, 1399 and 1622. It is clear in the PAGCOR charter that it does not include those games of chance covered by an existing franchise. Since Jai Alai has an existing franchise to operate. It could not have been the intent of Congress to grant franchises to operate jai-alai to 2 entities within the same jurisdiction. PD 1869 suffers from the vice of vagueness since PAGCOR had to seek the legal opinions of not just 1 but several government agencies. To begin with, PAGCOR was not authorized to centralize and integrate all games of chance that have existing franchises. And the repeal of PD 810 did not have any effect on the franchise of PAGCOR. In contending that jai-alai is impliedly included in Section 10 of PD 1869, PAGCOR is suggesting that an illegal act may be legalized by mere implication of law. MELO Justice Melo granted the motion for reconsideration. PAGCOR’s charter states that it is allowed to establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation, including sports, gaming pools (basketball, football, lotteries, etc) and such other forms of amusement and recreation including games of chance, which may be allowed by law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. In construing a statute, courts have to take the thought conveyed by the statute as a whole; construe the constituent parts together, ascertain the legislative intent from the whole act, consider each and every provision thereof in the light of the general purpose of the statute; and endeavor to make every part effective, harmonious and sensible. Verga legis non est recendum – from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Petitioners Raoul Del Mar contends that they have brought the present suit in their capacity as taxpayers and legislators. For a taxpayer’s suit to prosper, the petitioners (del mar) must have locus standi (legal standing). No public fund raised by taxation is involved in this case. No spending powers of Congress are involved nor is there an allegation of illegal disbursement of funds. Taxpayer’s suit – the act complained directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. VITUG Justice Vitug grant the petition to enjoin PAGCOR from operating jai-alai through BELLE and FILGAME or through any other agency and denies the petition to prohibit PAGCOR from itself managing or operating those games. PAGCOR’s charter states “to establish and operate clubs and casinos for amusement and recreation, including games of chance” is broad enough to allow PAGCOR to operate all kinds of sports and gaming pools, inclusive of jai-alai BUT NOT in joint ventre agreement with BELLE and FILGAME. The grant of a franchise is a purely legislative act that cannot be delegated to PAGCOR without violating the Constitution. DE LEON Justice de Leon granted the petition filed by PAGCOR. Section 10 of PD 1869 Section 10. Nature and term of franchise – “ x x x authority to operate and maintain gambling casinos, clubs and other recreation or amusement places, sports, gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football, lotteries, etc. x x x” Gaming – the act or practice of playing games for stakes Et cetera (etc) – depends largely on the context of the instrument, description and enumeration of the matters preceeding the term and subject to which it is applied. When used in a statute, the words should be given their usual and natural signication.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - when words and phrases of a statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. Del Mar says that there is no specific mention of jai alai and there should have been an express mention of jai alai. If that would be the case, it would render ineffective the use of the word “etc” in the said law. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - a statute is to be favored and must be adopted if reasonably possibly, which will give meaning to every word, clause, and sentence of the statute and operation and effect to every part and provision of it. Del Mar says that the operations of jai alai was a legislative grant by Marcos to a corporation controlled by his in-laws, the Philippine Jai Alai and Amusement Corporation (PJAC). STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - it is improper to inquire into the motives that influenced the legislative body except when those motives are disclosed (revealed) by the statute itself.\ Del Mar insist that PAGCOR was created to operate games of chance or gaming pools for which no franchises have been granted. The fact that there was an existing jai alai franchise of PJAC the time PD 1869 went into effect does not mean that jai alai can never be the subject of PAGCOR’s franchise upon repeal of PJAC’s franchise. PAGCOR was primarily created to maximize potential sources of revenue.